‘While looking for something else’ I found an article about what used to be pre…schools (and that earlier were known as ‘nursery schools’) and are now called “preK.”  I think the change in wording from “pre[before]-school” to ”pre[before]-K[indergarten]” is significant, but I will leave that point alone this time, as I will the point about education as an industry.

Campaign Watch: Spotlight on Two Early Education Laggards, 3 June 2008, The Early Ed Watch Blog, New America Foundation

Today’s final Democratic presidential primaries have focused public and media attention on South Dakota and Montana, two largely rural western states that get the last vote in the 2008 primary season. Here’s something else these two states have in common: They’re both early education laggards

…

Debate over the measure illustrated that “culture wars” opposition to preschool, from conservatives who view it as a gateway to government intrusion in the family, is still alive and well in some states, particularly those that lag on early education.

The name-calling caught my interest – I don’t find anything neutral about ”laggards.”  I did a search for “New America Foundation” and found many items in my email alone.

• Charter Schools: An Important Partner Supporting Quality Pre-k, 2 April 2008
• Pre-K Advocates of a Certain Age, 25 March 2008
• Let’s Count: Boosting Math in PK-3, 18 March 2008
• Continuing the Investment, 19 November 2007

That last item, “Continuing the investment,” has some strong statements, so I pause here in listing the emails for “New America Foundation” – Google says I have “21 results stored on your computer.”

Advocates of universal pre-K are nothing if not visionary. They view universal pre-kindergarten as not just an end in itself but also a first step toward much more comprehensive public social welfare programs for preschool-age children and their families: prenatal care, parental leave, universal children’s health care, and quality child care. For these advocates, the case for universal pre-K is also the case for new state-level systems, policies, and institutions that would serve children from birth through preschool.

The universal pre-K movement isn’t just about offering another social service: Pre-K advocates are actually building a whole new system of public education, and that has implications for the existing K-12 public education system.

Put a “whole new system of public education” together with compulsory schooling laws, and add in the “vision” of the advocates of “universal pre-K.”  The picture I see is of parents delivering babies and children to wherever it is that the visionaries see the cadre of professional child-raisers bringing up the babies and children.  That place sure does not look like home.

The writer explains that contrary to conservative opinions, and despite conservatives ‘fretting’ about sending children to school at increasingly younger ages:

By working together to build high-quality pre-K programs, education reformers and pre-K advocates can also open the door for improvements in the elementary and secondary education system. 

This means that the schooling experiments on little kids can lead to better schools for bigger kids, so the people in South Dakota and Montana had best get with the program.  It doesn’t matter that these states have low numbers of citizens – Montana is #44 in population and South Dakota is #46 — and that the number of children not schooled as toddlers must also be low, everyone must participate.  

The tertiary system — colleges and universities  — isn’t neglected either. 

States must also build new systems of teacher preparation and professional development to help experienced preschool teachers who lack a bachelor’s degree meet new, higher education standards.

That reminds me of something a drill sergeant told us recruits, “There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way.”  Apparently, the “experienced preschool teachers” are to learn the Educational Industry way.  Their vision is of people either as students or teachers, with the teachers teaching the students to be teachers.

I understand that the article is about schooling, but given the amount of time taken from the lives of people as they grow, do these visionaries see infants, babies, toddlers, children, teens, young adults, and adults doing anything other than living at school?

The words that brought this article to my news reader’s robotic attention were, “… people who home school their children are opposed to the legislation, but Clark-Coleman said she would wave (sic) the requirements for home-schoolers.”  If that’s the case, then the article shouldn’t be of interest to us.  After all, ‘we’ are outta that picture.

Still, the article niggles at me.

A Call For All-Day Kindergarten, 21 April 2008, WWJ news radio, Detroit, Michigan

Senate Bill 162 would “help maximize learning opportunities for the next generation, Michigan’s 21st century workers,” according to Clark-Coleman, who is a former Detroit School Board member.

Yuck.  The kiddos should be out playing stick-ball or laying under trees, but instead, they’ll have their “learning opportunities” maximized for their dismal-sounding destiny as “Michigan’s 21st century workers.”  That puts me in mind of the communist art of the late Soviet Union.  Especially in reference to Kindergarten, which in the original German means “children’s garden.” 

In addition to my objections to the grey-sounding grind of a whole century of hamster-wheel hurrying that today’s children theoretically could see, is the question of the purpose of education for children.  I understand that economic stability is necessary to keep things puttering along — economics can’t be tossed in a trash bag just because it’s the dismal science – but is shaping a child as a cog in the state’s economic engine the end-all and be-all of schooling?  Shouldn’t the focus of a child’s education be the child, and not just his future worth, but also his ‘right now?’

Either I echo Alfie Kohn’s ideas, or he echoes mine (chicken and egg, from my point of view) in his book Education, Inc.:

The question is what vision of schooling — and even of children — lies behind such suggestions [that business's interests drive education].  While a proper discussion of this issue lies outside the scope of this book, it is immediately evident that seeing education as a means for bolstering our economic system (and the interests of the major players in that system) is very different from seeing education as a means for strengthening democracy, for promotic social justice, or simply for fostering the well-being and development of the students themselves.

Michigan homeschooling parents don’t have to worry about being roped into mandatory Kindergarten (yet)  (online references to infant education go back to the 1970s), but the characterization of children as an economic widget of the 21st century to be manufactured by schools requires comment.

The support network, HomeSchool Association of California, has issued a summary of the In re Rachel L. situation.

Summary of the Case, “In re Rachel L. et al”

In February 2008, an appellate court in Los Angeles issued a decision that interpreted California’s education laws in a way that was very unfavorable to homeschoolers.

Unlike many states, California does not have any laws specifically authorizing or regulating homeschooling.  Like several other states whose laws do not mention homeschooling, California does have laws that say that children can meet the state’s compulsory attendance laws by going to private schools.  Homeschoolers in California, like homeschoolers in those other states, complied with the compulsory attendance laws by enrolling their children in private schools that permitted teaching at home, and these schools could be ones operated by third parties or ones established by the parents themselves for their own children.

This manner of homeschooling was not, as many in the press have portrayed it, a “loophole”.  California law does not have many regulations pertaining to private schools, and the ones that it does have can be met by parents forming their own schools and by schools that support homeschooling.  The state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, was aware of this interpretation of law, and agreed that it was permissible.

The appellate court, however, stated in its February opinion that it did not believe that private schools could permit homeschooling.  The judges seemed to think that the state legislature had clearly thought about homeschooling when it passed the private school laws and had decided that the only way to teach children at home was under a separate statute about tutoring, which requires a state teaching credential.  The court, of course, could not change a law or pass a new law; only the legislature could do that.  But it was interpreting the law in an unfavorable way.

The Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and all of the statewide homeschool support groups have gone on record as stating that the court’s interpretation was incorrect.  The statewide groups were preparing to appeal to the state Supreme Court for help in rectifying the situation, but in late March, the appellate court decided to rehear the case itself.

By court rules, whenever a court agrees to rehear a case, the opinion that it wrote the first time around is vacated, and of no further force or effect.  What that means is that the original decision with its unfavorable interpretation of law has gone away, and no judge or government official will be able to take action using that opinion as authority.  State law about homeschooling is now exactly the same as it was prior to the issuance of the February opinion.  The Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the various statewide homeschool groups believe that the interpretation prior to that decision was legally correct, and homeschoolers can continue to teach their children at home in reliance on the law as previously understood.

The appellate court will hold a new hearing on the matter this summer. All of the statewide groups are, with the assistance of pro bono counsel, filing amicus briefs in support of the prior interpretation of law.  A new decision is expected this fall.

We believe that the legislature is waiting to see what happens in the court system before taking any action.  It is quite probable that if the court’s new decision does not change the interpretation of law that was in place prior to its original decision, the legislature will not take any action, as the Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction are both accepting and even supportive of that interpretation.

Debbie Schwarzer
Co-chair Legal Team
Legislative Chair
HomeSchool Association of California

Other opinions from HSC on the situation are available from the HSC website.

Home-made education, 24 April 2008, The Charlotte Post, Charlotte, North Carolina

Angela Fulton’s children don’t have to leave their Weddington home for an education.

Fulton’s children – fifth-grader Aris, fourth-grader Christian and 4-year-old Carlyle – are homeschooled, part of a growing trend among black families.

“It’s not for everyone, but I know where my children are academically,” she said.

Although numbers vary nationally, more black parents are opting out of public education for homeschool. A Charlotte group, Families of Color Uniting Scholars, counts 75 families among its membership.

This article points up the broadening appeal of home education. More families outside the classic stereotypes of homeschooling families are seeing that they can make this style their own. Although “homeschooling isn’t for everyone,” homeschooling can be for anyone, and has been all along: Freedom Challenge — African American Homeschoolers (published 1996).

The article’s writer almost mentions the s-word and the myth that homeschooling has been “long criticized for its lack of socialization opportunities.” Many of these writers need to get out more because many homeschooling families overcompensate for the perceived lack of face time with their children’s peers. After the social whirl’s sparkle tarnishes, many of the same families cut back on social activities because the families are always on the go. Other families turn their car time into productive time.

Another criticism is that, “School systems look at [homeschooling] as pulling money from them in terms of enrollment, …” School systems may look at homeschooling that way, but they fail to factor in that –

• schools receive tax money from homeschooling families, but do not spend anything on the kids in those families
• schools are a service to families, not a requirement

Compulsory attendance laws say that children must attend some kind of school, not that children must attend public schools. Children are not fodder for schools.

I am glad to see that awareness is growing about the availability of homeschooling to anyone who wants to travel the wild path of adventure. Homeschooling is not about being ‘this’ way or ‘that’ way. Homeschooling is about families — all families.

Backdoor Dealings: A proposed bill that would get DCF off the back of homeschooling parents is caught in a political war between competing lawmakers, 2 April 2008, Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Connecticut

There’s a bait-and-switch scam going on in the General Assembly where the homeschooling bill 162 is concerned.

Originally proposed by Rep. Arthur O’Neill, it’s supposed to clarify a legal hitch causing problems for Connecticut parents who homeschool.

Here’s the deal: when parents withdraw their children from school to teach them at home, the schools have been calling the Department of Children and Families and reporting the parents for “educational neglect.”

…

Deborah Stevenson, an attorney who heads NHELD (National Home Education Legal Defense), finds this unacceptable. “It’s not enough to accept the letter, you must consider the child withdrawn,” she argues. “Evidence is not proof.”

Besides, acceptance of the letters isn’t really the problem: “School districts were accepting them, but not considering the children withdrawn, then calling DCF and charging them with educational neglect.”

Ridgefield homeschoolers tell of trials, 30 March 2008, Ridgefield Press, Ridgefield, Connecticut

Attorney Deborah Stevenson, an education lawyer in Southbury and the executive director of National Home Education Legal Defense, told the legislature that public schools around the state had been reporting families to the Department of Children and Family after the withdrawal of children from the public schools for homeschooling.

“The bill … is needed because of the improper, coercive, and abusive actions of school officials who falsely reported, or threatened to report, more than 40 families to the Department of Children and Families in this past year alone, simply because they exercised their right to refuse unlawful demands of public school officials, and withdrew their children from the public school system…

The bill would compel school districts to unconditionally acknowledge and respect the right of parents when they exercise their right to withdraw their children from a public school, she wrote.

…

A lawyer with the State Department of Education offered a different perspective on the controversy.

We’ve got a number of different statutes that relate to home instruction, said Attorney Laura Anastacio. But essentially what we have are dual obligations. Parents have certain statutory obligations and school districts have certain statutory obligations.

Local boards of education are required to make certain that children who reside within their school districts are attending public school, or they have to contact the parent and make sure that the child is receiving equivalent instruction elsewhere.

School personnel are also “mandatory reporters under state child protection statues: They are required to report suspected cases of abuse  not just beatings, but all kinds, including the “educational abuse” of not providing a child with adequate schooling.

They have to report cases of possible educational neglect, if a child isn’t being educated. Ms. Anastasio said.

A problem with what the lawyer for the State Department of Education says is that the schools are equating home education with educational neglect. There is no indication in this report that the schools have any reason to suspect neglect except that the parents have withdrawn the children. Sounds as if bullying has left the playground and is now in the schools’ offices.

Links to reports about the current state of affairs in Connecticut are at NHELD’s Connecticut page.

I believe this article is meant to be ‘about’ homeschooling, but instead, it is a recitation of legal constraints on home education in Virginia. The single comment on the piece is about an addition to the constraints that doesn’t appear in law.

Parents Say Home Schooling ‘Rewarding,’ 29 March 2008, Rocktown Weekly, Harrisonburg, Virginia

Student Requirements By Law

Necessary Parent Qualifications

Making The Choice

The segment from Monday’s Diane Rehm program from the NPR affiliate WAMU is available online.  I listened to the program, and made notes, in the hope that I’d be able to give a capsule account of the conversation.  Fat chance.  Professor Reich mentioned “public policy,” and other speakers brought up “children’s rights” and ”parents’ rights.” 

I did some web searches for these various factors of the conversation and, to me, it seems as if some of the controversy about homeschooling (if not all of it) comes down to the ancient commotion over what people think, and who gets to tell the kiddies about ‘it’ so that the kiddies will grow up to be ‘right-thinking’ adults.  All the parts seem to be about this particular control.  Anything else seems (to me) to be a smokescreen, not specifically on this NPR program, but in the overall discussion about homeschooling.

I made a rough transcript of the discussion that, I hope, accurately reflects what the host and guests talked about.

Home Schooling, 24 March 2008, The Diane Rehm Show, WAMU, Washington, D.C.

Rob Reich giving the background on the California court ruling in Re. Rachel L.
– ruling is atypical concerning the national trend in homeschooling
– Prof. Reich thinks the “tide is turning” on homeschooling regulation (from loose to strict)
– credentialing is probably unnecessary
– agrees about lack of constitutional right to homeschool

05:25  teachers organizations in California declined to participate on this program about homeschooling

05:44  Mike Donnelly of HSLDA
– ruling is deficient
– California rules allow parental discretion in the education of children
– the ruling applies to one family
– the ruling is precedent

07:30  Gretchen Roe, homeschooling mother and Calvert School community liaison
– description of her background

08:35  question from Diane Rehm to Gretchen Roe:  “What are your qualifications?” (for teaching her own children)  Follow-up answer.

11:04  question to Mike Donnelly about how fast homeschooling might grow, and why homeschooling will grow.  Answers were academic concerns of parents, safety of children, and morals and values.

12:30 — 13:30  music

14:05  question to Rob Reich about “what kinds of qualifications” does Mr. Reich feel are necessary “for a parent to become an effective” teacher of his or her own children.  Answer is not simple because of diversity of parental motivations for homeschooling, and that private and charter school teachers do not need to be credentialed.

15:40 Rob Reich: 
– you don’t want to build public policy on anecdotes
– as to what is happening academically with homeschooled kids, the “shocking” answer is that without skills testing, we don’t know

16:47  comment from email:  parents are misguided in their attempts to shield their children; children should be educated jointly between parents and professionals

17:30  Gretchen Roe asked to respond:  homeschooled children are not cloistered; parents have the opportunity to guide their children

19:52  question to Gretchen Roe about a “typical day.”  Answer is that there is no “typical” day.

21:10  Mike Donnelly talking about Pierce v. Society of Sisters and parental responsibility

23:10  Rob Reich explaining that the rights and responsibilities most at stake are those of the children being educated.  He is against unlimited parental choice because “We, the people” have an interest in the education of children.

24:30  Rob Reich’s choice for homeschool regulation
1.  register homeschools with public authorities
2.  have regular basic skills testing
3.  have curriculums submitted for approval

25:50  Gretchen Roe thinks that Rob Reich’s priorities are logical, but that a presumption of educator priority is fallacious.

27:00  phone callfrom a Florida homeschooler in favor of regulation and twice-annual testing (mid-term and end of term)

28:52  question to Mike Donnelly about his opinion of the regulatory aspect
– Federal republic and education is a state responsibility
– states have various methods of regulation (most don’t)
– HSLDA is for freedom
– minimum of government interference

29:38  comment by Rob Reich that the dissatisfaction with public schools has built up homeschooling has nothing to do with public schools because regardless of the quality of local schools, homeschoolers would not use them.  The public school itself is the problem for homeschoolers.

31:16 music

33:34  Caller from North Carolina – rights of children; right of a child to have connection with the world in a social way; need testing; concern about developmental isolation from peers; the kids have a right to be a part of society

35:40  Gretchen Roe replies about what her family does and caller responds, “But that’s YOU.”  Caller is concerned about all the homeschooled children deprived of social contact.  “What about all of the other homeschooled children?” 

36:28  Roe replies that schools have poorly socialized children among the student body.

36:41  Rehm asks Roe how her children are socialized “on a daily basis,” and Roe produces her list of good works.  [note:  this is not to disparage Gretchen Roe.  I've had to do the same thing myself.  'Society,' in the person of whoever you happen to be talking to, does not demand an accounting of social activity from the parents of the average young person who attends school, even though that young person may not be a member of French club, the honor society, the drama club, or is not the captain of the football team.  I realize this is a radio program of adult guests meant to inform listeners, but usually participation ON the radio show is taken as an indication of activity.]

38:16  Caller:  “My concern is more about who is going to be making sure that the other children in these other families who don’t do all of these wonderful things have the opportunity to be out in the world.”

38:25  Mike Donnelly underscores Rob Reich’spoint about anecdotes not making good public policy.  Studies have been done about homeschooling looking at both academic and social areas, and homeschooled kids did as good or better on the tests than their schooled peers.  The social test (SSRS) indicates that the homeschooled kids tested have not been harmed by their homeschool experience.

39:12  Email from listener:  How well do homeschooled children score on SATs, and how well they are prepared for college?  Mike Donnelly:  Answer is statistical; the ACT record keepers report that homeschoolers score slightly above the public school average.  Also, many colleges actively recruit homeschooled graduates.  Rob Reich:  Anecdotes are not a basis for public policy; studies about homeschoolers have “varying degrees of badness.”  Asking homeschoolers to report on homeschooling is like asking tobacco companies about nicotine addiction.  The participants are self-selected, so the sampling of homeschoolers is biased toward those who feel they’ll do well on the tests.  In terms of public policy, the studies can’t be trusted.

41:40  Rehm asking Gretchen Roe if her children ever wanted to go to school.  Answer:  9-week experiment with public school because of illness.  Children became disillusioned with school attendance.

43:13  Email from listener questioning Gretchen Roe teaching six children of different ages, and asking what her qualifications are to do this, as well as teaching “chemistry” and “European history.”  Answer:  She uses Calvert’s handbook for each grade, and other resources for her teenage children.

44:50  Mike Donnelly asked about the situation in Germany.

46:15  Phone call from pro-homeschool Georgia listener on anecdotal information.  Caller says public education system is bankrupt with predatory teachers, and lack of true education, freedom, and children learning to think.

47:55  Rob Reich asking why Mike Donnelly is opposed to regulating homeschooling by regular testing.  Mike Donnelly says it is a state issue.  Rob Reich also asked about child’s rights, and what if a child wants to do something the parents object to.  Answer is that children are born into families and that parents can be trusted.

49:00 Question by Diane Rehm about any opinions by presidential candidates?

49:35:  Question by Diane Rehm to Gretchen Roe about her worries about the California court decision.  Answer included reference to the rights of children, and that those rights should be “in concert with their ages.”  The children are under their parents’ authority until they reach the age of majority.

50:55  End

One item that caught my attention more than once in this discusison was the issue of “public policy.”  This is a reference I’ve heard throughout my adult life, but not one that I ever bothered to dissect.  “Public policy” was just ‘there.’  In considering how public policy applies to private family life, I went to Wikipedia (because it’s convenient) to find out the popular opinion about “public policy.”

Policy, Wikipedia (as of 28 March 2008)

Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.

…

According to William Jenkins in Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective (1978), a policy is “a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve”. Being the author of numerous papers on the subject he is considered to be a leading authority in this field.

So if the government develops “public policy” on homeschooling, this will be what people outside a family feel is best for ‘generic children’ in specific families.  I say ‘generic children’ because public policy cannot take specific children into consideration — not even school classrooms can do that.

Despite growing up in a family, and being a parent in a family, I have no idea if there are public policies about what goes on in my family.  I know that the children were to be vaccinated because of public health concerns, that I (and they) could do some things but not others because those things were against the law, and that the buildings we lived in had to meet construction codes in order to be safe.  I know that public schools must abide by policy because they use public money and educate ‘other peoples’ children,’ but I don’t know about “public policy” issues that reach into a family to influence beliefs and ways of thinking.

Is having “public policy” — “… political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals …” — concerning homeschooling a reasonable expectation?

To paraphrase Mr. Reich, asking an educator who specializes in public policy issues and statistical studies whether or not these methods should be used to control something is like relying on the tobacco industry for reliable information about nicotine addiction.  We all have our pet peeves, and how we feel about reliance on governmental oversight skews opinion about making laws and regulations as much as being an ‘advocate’ for a particular undertaking, such as homeschooling.

posted by Valerie

Smoothing A Way Out Of School, 18 February 2008, Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut

Home-schooling advocates will be watching with interest when legislators hold a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would change the way parents withdraw their children from public school.

The proposed law would require parents to send a certified letter informing their local school superintendent of their decision, and would mandate that the school board immediately “deem the child withdrawn from school.”

State statutes do not specify how children under 16 are withdrawn from a public school.

Home-School Support, 20 February 2008, Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut

For the past two years, Formichella said she has hidden in her house, shouting through the door when people knock because she fears the person on the other side might be a state social worker coming to take her children away.

…

Within weeks of pulling her children from the public school system in 2006, Formichella received a letter from the local school superintendent requiring her to sign a form and submit more evidence that her children were being properly schooled. If she didn’t, Formichella said, she would risk a neglect investigation by the state Department of Children and Families. Formichella was frightened at first, then incensed.

“That’s a heinous, heinous thing to threaten a parent,” Formichella said outside the hearing room Tuesday. “And [the school superintendent] knew me!”

Commentary on the legislation from the Connecticut blog, Consent of the Governed.

• CT Parental Rights: School withdrawal bill hearing makes the news (includes link to public hearing video)
• More on the school withdrawal bill (commentary on the P.R. surrounding the bill)
• Withdrawal bill news links (links to news reports)

posted by Valerie

The Neubronners have left Germany and are living on the island of Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands.

Out of Germany’ An update from the Neubronner Family, 25 January 2008, LearningFreely.net

Hello to All of our friends and supporters,

We are swimming and surfing, and trying to make the best of this adventure. We are still on Gran Canaria, in it’s main city, Las Palmas. Currently we’re on the 15th floor of a scy scraper, however on Monday we will fly to La Palma, where there is a house we are allowed to live in. It’s empty, so we have to buy furniture, but the owner is helping us. That’s because the furniture is actually for him anyway. It is a lonley place in the mountains, so we are very curious how this will be, following the weeks in a big city. We can ride to the beach in about 20 minutes by bus.

… more at site

posted by Valerie

When the virtual schools first entered the scene homeschoolers in some states were bombarded with marketing mailers that claimed that homeschooling could be scary and that their program was just like homeschooling, but a bit better due to their educational experts. This type of marketing continued at the virtual school presentations and some of us would point out that certainly their program might be a good fit for some families, but although the school was at home, it was not the same as home education since their program required public school enrollment. The salesman would always reply that it all depended on how you define homeschooling. I have never, nor do I now want to define homeschooling, home education or unschooling because it IS whatever works for each and every family. However, I did and still do object to any public school claiming to be like homeschooling, thus bringing us into a world of definitions that many homeschoolers chose to leave behind.

It turns out this image of the virtual schools being like homeschooling, but a bit better is not serving the virtual schools as well as they would have liked, so as of late, the virtual schools are trying to separate themselves from the homeschooling, but better image that they created.

This latest report illustrates their attempt to disconnect from homeschooling now that they are being questioned for being “similar to homeschooling” and they are attempting to remove the image that THEY worked so hard to create. Here is the link to the article and a few snippets.

Court Ruling Threatens Virtual Schools
Last Edited: Thursday, 17 Jan 2008, 6:58 PM CST
Created: Thursday, 17 Jan 2008, 6:58 PM CST
Credit: MyFox
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer

CROSS PLAINS, Wis. — Seventh-grader Marcy Thompson cried when she heard that a court had ordered the state to stop funding the virtual school she has attended for the last five years.

<snip>

The ruling, the first of its kind in the U.S., placed the Wisconsin Virtual Academy at the center of a national policy debate after critics raised a key question: Do virtual schools amount to little more than home schooling at taxpayer expense?

<snip>Virtual schools generally require parents to lead daily lessons. Licensed teachers monitor students’ progress through e-mails, online classes and tutoring.

But students do not spend their whole day in front of a computer. Marcy does homework, takes interactive online lessons about once a week and is a member of a math club that meets in person.

Last month, the appeals court ordered the state to stop funding the academy, ruling that parents were the primary educators — a violation of a state law requiring public school teachers to be licensed.

<snip>

Her mother, Julie Thompson, said learning from home is a better option for her daughter because she is easily distracted. Marcy agrees and says she prefers the online interaction with teachers and students to the isolation of home schooling.

I value truth in advertising and I appreciate them setting the record straight, but they would have done us all a favor had they marketed these schools as a new form of public school to begin with and NOT as home education reform.

Posted by Mary Nix